Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:38:05 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>
cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: micro-optimize send_ipi_one case
In-Reply-To: <20191024163204.GA4673@rkaganb.sw.ru>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1910250036090.1783@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20191024152152.25577-1-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20191024163204.GA4673@rkaganb.sw.ru>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > +
> > +	if (cpu >= 64)
> > +		goto do_ex_hypercall;
> > +
> > +	ret = hv_do_fast_hypercall16(HVCALL_SEND_IPI, vector,
> > +				     BIT_ULL(hv_cpu_number_to_vp_number(cpu)));
> > +	return ((ret == 0) ? true : false);
> 
> D'oh.  Isn't "return ret == 0;" or just "return ret;" good enough?

   'return ret == 0' != 'return ret'

!ret perhaps :)

Thanks,

	tglx